This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Conflict of Laws Notes

Jurisdiction Under English National Rules Cases

Updated Jurisdiction Under English National Rules Cases Notes

Conflict of Laws Notes

Conflict of Laws

Approximately 333 pages

Conflict of Laws notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes cover all the major conflicts of laws cases and so are perfect for anyone doing a law degree in the UK or, given the international nature of this subject, these notes also make a great supplement for those studying law abroad.

These notes were formed directly from a reading of the cases and main texts and are vigorous, concise and very well written. Everything is conveniently split up by topic as you can see by the l...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:


Service Within Jurisdiction

Personal Service

Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein [1972]

C wished to serve D, a French art dealer. Validly did so whilst he was on a temporary visit to country attending Ascot races.

‘Place of Business’

Rakusens Ltd [2001]

Defendant company’s business card listed address of that company’s agent as D’s place of business in the UK. C served claim on this address. Held:

  • Service upon place of business of D’s agent does not suffice

  • must be place of business of D himself

  • On facts, was nothing to suggest that address was that of D rather than simply D’s agent.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co [1902]

D ran exhibition at a trade fair in London. Held that this sufficed to make D ‘carrying on business’ in UK. Thus claim could be served upon it.

Cleveland Museum of Art v Capricorn Art International [1990]

  • Art dealer’s house held to be place of business as it contained works of art

  • Thus document was validly served there.

Lakah Group v Al-Jazeera [2003]

C alleged they had validly served D at their London offices. D had made statements on its website and in interviews to effect that it had an office in London, and a bureau chief in London. Held:

  • These statements were to promote D as a broadcaster.

  • and NOT for purpose of showing D as a corporate entity operated in London.

  • therefore statements had no bearing on whether D had a place of business in UK.

  • A place in which D has no more than a transient or irregular connection is not a ‘place of business’ of the company for purposes of CPR Rule 6.9.

Service Out of Jurisdiction

Procedure and Standards

Bas Capital Funding v Medfinco [2004]

Attempt was made to serve a Maltese defendant out of jurisdiction. C made multiple claims, the validity of which D disputed. Held:

  • A small number of contractual claims did have a valid basis.

  • thus English courts had jurisdiction to hear this limited number of claims.

  • however this did NOT mean English courts had jurisdiction to mean the invalid claims.

Grounds of Jurisdiction


High Tech International v Deripaska [2006]

Issue was whether D, a Russian national, could be said to be resident in England so that the English courts had jurisdiction to hear claims in Russian law against him. D owned two large houses in UK and made frequent visits for business purposes. Held:


  • On facts:

  1. D owned 20 properties in various countries.

  • Thus use to which they were put suggested they were mere ‘stopovers’

  • And NOT homes

  1. D’s business trips to UK were ancillary to conduct of his Russian businesses

  • Thus D not resident in UK.

Joinder and Collateral Claims

Multinational Gas Co v Multinational Gas Services Ltd [1983]

C sued a subsidiary company in UK, then sought to join parent companies as co-Ds. Was argued that parent companies were not “proper parties” to case, as C’s main motive for suing subsidiary was to allow English courts to get jurisdiction over parent companies through joinder as co-Ds. In addition, subsidiary was bankrupt so would be unable to pay any compensation ordered by court. Held:

  • If C’s predominant reason for suing D1 is simply to bring D2 into jurisdiction, does not necessarily mean that D2 is not proper party.

  • provided there is bona fide good cause of action against D1 in his own right, C’s motives for bringing it irrelevant.

  • Thus even though D1 is bankrupt, does not mean parent oil companies not proper parties.

  • Is not D1’s ability to meet judgment that is relevant

  • But rather the strength of case against him

Credit Agricole v Unicof [2004]

C provided financing for coffee venture; venture collapsed, and C launched claims against multiple defendants, some of whom were domiciled in UK. Was found that UK courts had jurisdiction against first 8 Ds. 9th D had falsely certified that coffee was being stored in a warehouse in Kenya and D wished to sue for deceit. Issue was whether 9th D was a proper party to case. Held:

  • Where issues concerning D2 are the same or closely connected to those concerning D1, D2 may be joindered.

  • In this case, allegations of deceit arose from same facts as claims against first 8 Ds.

  • Thus 9th D could be joindered.


British Aerospace v Dee Howard [1993]

Contract contained clause stating that English courts “shall have jurisdiction to entertain any action”. D claimed English courts’ jurisdiction was not exclusive. Held:

Exclusive Clause

  • Even if clause not stated to be excusive, implication may lead to conclusion that it is exclusive.

  • On facts, reference to “any action” should be construed as “all actions”.

  • Thus jurisdiction clause was exclusive

  • Otherwise would be no point submitting claims before English courts.

Sharab v Prince Al Saud [2009]

Oral contract made in London restaurant for work as an agent for purchase of aircraft. C sued for non-payment. Under English law, unless otherwise stipulated payment is to be made at place where contract is concluded. Held:

  • Breach (the non-payment of D) occurred in England.


Cooley v Ramsay [2008]

C injured in car accident in Australia, and attempted to sue for economic loss arising as result of this in UK. Held:

  • C could serve out of the jurisdiction.

  • Consequential loss constitutes damage for purposes of para. 3.1.(9).

ABCI v Banque Franco Tunisienne [2003]

C relied upon what it alleged to be fraudulent advice when investing in a company. The advice was issued abroad, but C claimed that decision to make investment took place in London viafunds from its Swiss bank account. Held:

  • English courts had no jurisdiction under either of para 3.1 (9) grounds

Sustained In England

  • Bank account out of which funds were invested was situated in Switzerland.

  • Thus clear that financial loss suffered as result of alleged tort occurred in Switzerland.

Resulted From Act Within England

  • “Act” must be that of tortfeasor

  • Thus relevant act was the provision of advice

  • And NOT C’s subsequent reliance upon that advice.

  • Thus the act took place abroad,...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Notes.